I'm sorry, Mia. I should have included CanZen's response to my question about his belief regarding afterlife so you could understand the thread. This is what he said, "Once death comes the anihilistic force destroys the holistic nature of being . . . and nothing remains." Since this belief cannot be based on fact, it is clear CanZen has made a conscious choice to believe he will be annihilated.

I don't understand why I must keep repeating myself. When you say, "...you're editing the word of God in order to make it meet your own higher standard of behavior" you are implying the Bible is the word of God, a concept which I have argued at least twice is not true.

CanZen, you say, "If you do indeed (as a believing theist) have a choice, well that choice is between a heavenly eternity or a hellish one, the choice cannot be one between annihilation or afterlife." That my friend, is a statement of faith. Welcome to my world!

Traditional Judeo/Christian thought teaches there is a heaven and a hell. That is simply linear thinking in a non-linear world. I stand by my statement that our choice is eternal life or annihilation. Heaven is a quaint concept. Think about it: you live one short life on earth, then boom—you're cool for eternity. Is that consistent with the evolutionary nature of the universe as it has been revealed to you?

I say again, in order to understand me, you must be willing to utterly abandon all those primitive notions about what religion is. Don't you see that you are limiting yourselves to what others (others you don't respect no less) tell you religion is?

CanZen, you say,
"Then finally you list his [Jesus'] credentials and I quote, "his unconditional love for each of us, loving us both as a brother and as a father; his dignity, his kindness, his compassion, his patience, his tolerance, his grace, his understanding, his wisdom, his courage, his faith in each of us; that majestic leadership." Wow, what a list! Where did you find all these wonderful traits? Since you see the New Testament in the same light as you view the Old (as a work of primitives), you obviously did not get these perfected characteristics from the scriptures. So where did you find evidence for all this?"

CanZen, why do you insist on finding knowledge only from material sources? Faith is the evidence of things not seen. It is through faith one is able to develop those majestic characteristics, and they are attainable by all. They are ours for the taking.

Ted, you write:
The only item I wonder about is whether you are implying we are, in our current state, sons and daughters of God. I submit that we are "created", which implies something different from the Creator. Jesus was "begotten, not created" which implies sameness (giving clues to the meaning of the Trinity, i.e., three-in-one). I think we are striving for sonship (daughtership), and have been provided the model for achieving it.

This is my understanding, Ted: We are all sons and daughters of God, whether or not we understand that, appreciate it, or even reject it. Our quest is to become as Godlike (perfect) as possible, and Jesus is our perfect example. "Begotten, not created" was intended to reveal that Jesus' material being evolved as did any other human's, through sexual reproduction. (Which is inconsistent, by the way, with the concept of immaculate conception.)

[quote author=“andonstop”]
CanZen, why do you insist on finding knowledge only from material sources? Faith is the evidence of things not seen. It is through faith one is able to develop those majestic characteristics, and they are attainable by all. They are ours for the taking.

‘Round these parts, we’ve come to refer to this sort of statement as a ‘conversation stopper’, pal. You’re now talking the language of fairytale imaginings, which leads us into never-neverlandlike circles, since faith allows you to make up whatever happens to feel right to you at any given moment, and not a shred of proof required to support any of it.

By all means, have at it, but your particular spin—“He’s all about the LOVE!!!”—can only honestly be considered a wish and a hope, not knowledge. First you postulate that the deity absolutely exists, then that It is a “He”, and further that He is all-loving. Lacking in anything to compel me, I take none of those unnecessary steps.

As to your take on the Bible. . . are you suggesting it’s just a collection of tribal literature, based on tradition, and not a divine and vital communication from your deity? If so, we agree. . . but that also eliminates the sole basis for Christianity.

I do apologize, though, for having been unaware of CanZen’s use of the word ‘annihilate’ in his previous posting, and was instead responding only to what I perceived as your use of it, meaning an annihilation set in motion by a deity.

Signature

Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

[quote author=“andonstop”]
“Begotten, not created” was intended to reveal that Jesus’ material being evolved as did any other human’s, through sexual reproduction. (Which is inconsistent, by the way, with the concept of immaculate conception.)

Are you aware that the Immaculate Conception refers solely to Mary having been born to a sinless existence, and has nothing to do with Jesus’ birth?

Signature

Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

[quote author=“Mia”][quote author=“andonstop”]
“Begotten, not created” was intended to reveal that Jesus’ material being evolved as did any other human’s, through sexual reproduction. (Which is inconsistent, by the way, with the concept of immaculate conception.)

Are you aware that the Immaculate Conception refers solely to Mary having been born to a sinless existence, and has nothing to do with Jesus’ birth?

I thought it referred to the catch made by Franco Harris in the 1972 AFC Divisional Playoffs between the Oakland Raiders and the Pittsburg Steelers. Even today, it is still one of the most controversial plays in history.

The point I was was making, andonstop, was about the difference between begetting and making. For instance, I can make a bowl, but I can only beget another human. Similarly, God made Man (different critter), but begot Jesus (same critter). Point is that God and Jesus are the same, while we are different from both. We strive for that sameness. Basically, we are trying for a promotion to little gods. See?

andonstop, you first of all knocked the wheels of my little red wagon and you’re now dragging it through the dirt on its axels. Look, you, by leaving out all my talk about the fact that we are “children of motion” (that is, living is a momentous event, we are propelled to life and to live by certain forces all of which exhibit motion as their primary constituent). That’s from where the my conclusion arises from the FACT that we are NOT materials (or objects) that happen to be in motion while occupying time and space. I was quite clear about the FACT that living beings are phenomenal events which occupy spacetime (this perspective makes motion the basis for our existence . . . even prior to the idea of substances in space and time, all these latter ones are concepts that we ourselves contribute to our reality).

My main point was blunt and factual . . . once motion (in the living sense) stops (at death), there is nothing left to continue the process of life. I was not implying that there is some sort of other ethereal force called annihilation that comes like the grim reaper to snuff you out of existence. No, the end of the motility IS the force of annihilation. So there is no choice in the “matter” - I will be dead and there will be no choices left for me at that point; existence will have ceased for me. Now knowing that to be a FACT, I really don’t see the point of making a choice between annihilation or afterlife while I am alive, that’s just wishful thinking, as Mia has already said. Even to think that I have such a choice to make is to already delude myself into believing that I have god-like powers - and I am not that crazy. In keeping with Joad’s thoughts about the possiblity of heaven, I don’t want to have god’s power either (although I see rather clearly that such is your whole purpose in this life).

You andonstop, some across as if you have discovered a new “lifeline” to god, but in getting to this “higher place” you have basically jettisoned all the dogma and the creeds of the bible. All that is left for us to grasp is that you and god are like “one” in some mystical union . . . but in FACT all of that is completely in your own head, maybe as far as you are concerned you are god? Therefore, the only way for us to critique your andonstop-like god is to criticize you personally. Maybe it’s time to call in the ad hominem troops?

[quote author=“CanZen”]You andonstop, some across as if you have discovered a new “lifeline” to god, but in getting to this “higher place” you have basically jettisoned all the dogma and the creeds of the bible.

Isn’t it amazing how Christians can continue to believe in the divinity of Jesus even as they question the only thing backing up this belief.

Signature

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

If you are so very unhappy with being human that you need a promotion to some higher entity, why don’t you start with something a bit less ambitious. Maybe you could seek promotion to a cockroach.

After all, a cockroach is a far more noble and less sinful creature than humans.

Because that is not a logical conclusion, trading one temporal existence for another. But it does present an interesting question - do you actually value cockroaches more than humans, generally speaking, or are you simply trying to make yourself feel superior by being sarcastic?

[quote author=“camanintx”][quote author=“CanZen”]You andonstop, some across as if you have discovered a new “lifeline” to god, but in getting to this “higher place” you have basically jettisoned all the dogma and the creeds of the bible.

Isn’t it amazing how Christians can continue to believe in the divinity of Jesus even as they question the only thing backing up this belief.

[quote author=“Ted”]But it does present an interesting question - do you actually value cockroaches more than humans, generally speaking, or are you simply trying to make yourself feel superior by being sarcastic?

OO-ee. First it was feeling set upon for expressing a mere “opinion”, now it’s imputing someone else’s arrogant assumption of superiority from a clever remark about sinfulness. What next?

The question is not, manifestly not, what Joad values, but what God devalues as being sinful. Stay on target. Stay on target.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Ted”]But it does present an interesting question - do you actually value cockroaches more than humans, generally speaking, or are you simply trying to make yourself feel superior by being sarcastic?

OO-ee. First it was feeling set upon for expressing a mere “opinion”, now it’s imputing someone else’s arrogant assumption of superiority from a clever remark about sinfulness. What next?

The question is not, manifestly not, what Joad values, but what God devalues as being sinful. Stay on target. Stay on target.

I am ashamed.

As I mentioned in some other post, I acknowledge my flaw of being prickly.

But I did not get the connection from what I was saying originally to God considering cockroaches as being sinful or unsinful. Sin comes from a conscious choice. Without consciousness, how can there be sin?

My originnal comment was regarding the difference between begetting and making, and why Christiians are (should be) striving toward perfection (“little god”, tongue-in-cheek) exemplified by Christ, who was “begotten, not made”.

I did not say I was unhappy with my present state (I am, in fact, too often very happy with it), but I did imply that my present state is imperfect, prickliness being a perfect example.